Western Europe, a large part of the First World, is transforming itself into part of the Third World, a deliberate regression.

What are the rulers of western Europe thinking as they continue to insist on bringing hordes of hostile barbarians into their countries, eventually to rule over them? The demographic transformation costs an enormous chunk of each nation’s economy. The indigenous citizens suffer a huge increase of criminal attacks, rape, robbery, murder and terrorism. Yet the governments continue to invite vast numbers of aliens in; aliens whose culture, customs, morals, values, law, religion, ideology, and standards of everything from hygiene to education, are wholly incompatible with their own?

The indigenous populations are shrinking? They need more workers to maintain the welfare state? And if immigrants are parasites and not workers that’s still okay so there must some other reason? You’re sorry for them, they come from war-torn countries, you want to give them asylum because you want to show brotherly love to fellow-human-beings-in-distress? But aren’t these the very people who have made the wars? Aren’t these the same ones who are torturing and burning to death and drowning in boiling oil their fellow-human-beings-in-distress? Can’t they improve their own countries rather than wrecking yours by making yours quite as nasty as the ones they’ve left behind them?

Millions of Europeans don’t like losing their country, their property, and their lives to the barbarians, and they could stop it by changing their governments, but they don’t. They vote the same destroyers of their heritage back into power over and over again. Why?

You say the answers to all these questions are in the mail? Or are they blowing in the wind?

Liberal ideology conceives of “safe spaces” in the context of alleged white patriarchy, but there was a real need for a “safe space” in Britain’s Manchester Arena on May 22, when 22-year-old terrorist Salman Abedi detonated his nail- and screw-filled suicide bomb after a concert by teen idol Ariana Grande. What was the “progressive” answer to yet another instance of Islamic terrorism in the West? Feckless calls for resisting hate, pledges of renewed diversity, and little else.

A rethinking of immigration policies is off the table. Nothing that an Islamic terrorist can do will ever shake the left-wing commitment to open borders—not mass sexual assaults, not the deliberate slaughter of gays, and not, as in Manchester last week, the killing of young girls. The real threat that radical Islam poses to feminism and gay rights must be disregarded in order to transform the West by Third World immigration. Defenders of the open-borders status quo inevitably claim that if a terrorist is a second-generation immigrant, like Abedi, immigration policy has nothing to do with his attack. (Abedi’s parents emigrated to Britain from Libya; his immediate family in Manchester lived in the world’s largest Libyan enclave outside Africa itself.) Media Matters ridiculed a comment about the Manchester bombing by Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt with the following headline: fox news host suggests ‘open borders’ are to blame for manchester attack carried out by british native.

Earhardt had asked how to prevent “what’s happening in Europe, with all these open borders, they’re not vetting, they’re opening their borders to families like this, and this is how they’re paid back in return”. Pace Media Matters, a second-generation Muslim immigrant with a zeal for suicide bombing is as much of an immigration issue as a first-generation immigrant with a terrorist bent. The fact that second-generation immigrants are not assimilating into Western culture makes immigration policy more, not less, of a pressing matter. It is absurd to suggest that Abedi picked up his terrorist leanings from reading William Shakespeare and William Wordsworth, rather than from the ideology of radical Islam that has been imported into Britain by mass immigration.

The Washington Post, too, editorialized that “defenders of vulnerable immigrants and asylum seekers, who in Britain as elsewhere in the West remain the targets of populist demagogues, could take some comfort from the fact that the assault apparently did not originate with those communities.” Well, where did the assault originate from — Buckingham Palace?

Since liberals and progressives will not allow a rethinking of open borders policy, perhaps they would support improved intelligence capacity so as to detect terror attacks in the planning stages? Nope. The Left still decries the modest expansions of surveillance power under the 2001 Patriot Act as the work of totalitarianism. Former New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly sought to gather publicly available information about dense Muslim neighborhoods in New York in order to monitor potential radicalization; his discontinued initiative is still denounced as anti-Muslim oppression. Internet companies protect encrypted communications from government access, to the applause of civil libertarians and the mainstream media. The National Security Agency’s mass data analysis, done by unconscious computer algorithms, is still being challenged in court. …

So what does the progressive and liberal bloc offer? Treacly bromides, combined with fatalism about the necessity of adjusting to future attacks.

A day after Manchester, the Washington Post admonished:

As nations across the West have learned, it is not possible to prevent all such terrorist attacks, especially when they are staged by homegrown militants. What is possible is a response that focuses on uniting rather than dividing a diverse society. That’s what was happening in Manchester on Tuesday, as thousands of people of all races and faiths gathered for a vigil in the city’s Albert Square. “I’m not here as a person with brown skin or someone born Muslim,” a man named Amir Shah told a Guardian reporter. “I’m here as a Mancunian.” If that spirit prevails, the terrorists will have failed.

No, the terrorists will have failed if they can no longer slaughter children. They don’t care if a terror attack is met with candlelight vigils; they care if border restrictions and law enforcement make it impossible to destroy lives.

The flip side of the Post’s “terrorists will have failed if we light candles” conceit is the ubiquitous meme that the “terrorists will have won” if we modify our intelligence strategies or immigration policies in any way. The New York Times editorialized after the Manchester bombing: “It is important to recognize this attack for what it is: an attempt to shake Britain — and, by extension, the rest of Europe and the West — to its core, and to provoke a thirst for vengeance and a desire for absolute safety so intense, it will sweep away the most cherished democratic values and the inclusiveness of diverse societies.” This response is narcissistic. The attack was an effort to kill British girls and their parents, period. The terrorists win every time they pull off such massacres. They are not monitoring the legislative process and plotting how to move the needle on Western security protections in a way contrary to their own self-interest. If a society were exclusively Christian, Jewish, or even Muslim, it would be just as much the target of attack by ISIS or al-Qaida as a more “diverse” society.

Besides which, diversity per se is NOT a cherished value of the West. It is a suicidal policy of the Left. Western nations could and did accept newcomers of diverse origins if the immigrants were ready to live under the law of their hosts and were eager to be assimilated. But diversity in itself was not seen as a supremely good thing until the Left became obsessed with race and racism.

Moreover, how would the New York Times distinguish a terror attack that seeks to “sweep away . . . the inclusiveness of diverse societies” from one that was merely intended to kill? Any terror attack carries some chance (albeit an increasingly de minimis one) that it will result in a tightening of immigration or security policies, but that does not mean that such tightening is the goal of the attack.

Perhaps aware that the “candlelight vigil” strategy for fighting terrorism may seem a little wan, progressives make passing reference to actual security measures, but couched in such broad terms as to be almost meaningless. And they are only faking it, because those security measures would violate core tenets of progressive ideology. …

The [New York] Times says .. it is … “critical that immigrants, especially Muslims, are not stigmatized” … “understanding is critical” and [it] inveighs against “whipping up divisive ethnic, racist and religious hatreds”.

Here’s painful irony. The bien pensants of the Left, whose organ is the New York Times, are themselves passionately dedicated, heart-mind-hand-and-voice, to “whipping up divisive ethnic, racist and religious hatreds”.

When it comes to terrorism … a country is apparently not allowed to say: “Enough is enough, the status quo is not working, we need to rethink the policies that have allowed this mayhem to flourish.” …

The writer asks why the emotions triggered by the attack, “horror, anger, sadness, fear, revulsion”, should not be politicized. We agree with her that they should be. Why should we pretend not to be afraid of Muslim terrorism? We are terrorized. Political action needs to be taken against those who are terrorizing us.

Islamic terrorism in the West is an immigration problem. Until we have the law enforcement and intelligence capacity to detect terror plots, immigration policy has to change, both in Europe and in the U.S. …

The immigration of Third World barbarians – in particular Muslim barbarians – needs to be STOPPED.

The United States must not end up in the same situation. We need lower immigration levels and much tighter screening. The Manchester bombing vindicated President Donald Trump’s March 2017 executive order briefly limiting travel to the U.S. from half a dozen ISIS- and al-Qaida-riven countries, including Libya, while the administration reviews security screening in those countries. Yet three days after Manchester, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that order, claiming that it “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination”. This judicial crusade against Trump’s travel pause cripples the executive’s ability to protect the country from attack, by exporting phantom constitutional rights to the world. Progressives’ passivity in the face of Islamic terrorism is not a consistent philosophy. It is rather the outcome of their commitment to open borders at any cost. That ideology has taken too many lives and must be overcome.

I often agree with MacDonald, but sometimes she goes too far for the authoritarian state. In this case I find her hostility to secure private (encrypted) communication deeply troubling. It’s a throwback to the Clinton administration’s attempt to outlaw secure encryption, until the eventually got swamped with privately created encryption (look up the history of the cypherpunk movement and PGP), and it became obvious that business too needs that security.

Your point about encrypted communications is important. Should law-enforcement be given the right to demand de-encryption by third parties (such as Apple) in the vital cause of protecting the public from terrorism? It is a standing dilemma, whether to go for more powers to law-enforcement in order to deal effectively with terrorism, or to protect the freedom of the individual at any cost because that freedom is the supreme value. I wrestled with the question for years when my full-time job was counter-terrorism, both on my own and in many a forum where the question was invariably raised. I still do not have an answer.

ncgh

What you open up to the FBI, you open up to that Saudis, or the Chinese government. And as we’ve recently seen, the FBI can not be trusted either.

Even during the dark days of Clinton’s war on crypto, people were getting it out there, if not fully legally (I was a small part of that process). If hackers have to band together to subvert authoritarianism again, I hope it will be done.

ncgh

There is a saying “freedom isn’t free”. It applies in wartime, but also in general life. A free society cannot be controlled like a totalitarian one. Does one prioritize freedom or safety?

liz

The NYT suggesting that it’s more “critical that immigrants, particularly Muslims, not be stigmatized”, and that the “inclusiveness of diverse societies” not be “swept away” after Muslim terrorist attacks, is the same response we got from the Army bigwig after the Fort Hood attack – that failing to maintain the Army’s diversity would be a worse tragedy than the massacre itself.
The Left’s hypocritical disregard for the safety of individual citizens, not to mention national security, is stunning. Yet in spite of this obviously dangerous disconnect with reality, idiots continue to suck down these “treacly bromides” as if they were the tenets of a sacred religion. Yes, the self sacrificing, self defeating, self destructive religion of the Left.